Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Mid-Coast Council [2020] NSWLEC 1440

Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Mid-Coast Council [2020] NSWLEC 1440

Leave was refused because the Applicant had been on notice of the Respondent's concerns about earthworks, cut and fill and tree impacts well before the hearing, the proposed amendments would prejudice the Respondent because its arborist had not considered the amended plans and the arboricultural experts had been excused, curing that prejudice would likely require recalling experts, extending the proceedings and increasing costs, and granting leave would be contrary to the just, quick and cheap disposal of the proceedings required by s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the Court's Class 1 practice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal / Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend the Development Application and Rely on Amended Plans During a Part Heard Hearing
Outcome
Leave to amend the development application and rely on amended plans was refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'amended Plans' 'leave to Amend' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management' 'prejudice']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Application Appeal' 'amended Plans' 'leave to Amend' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management' 'prejudice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Development Appeal / Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend the Development Application and Rely on Amended Plans During a Part Heard Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend its development application and rely on amended plans during the part-heard proceedings.' 'Whether granting leave would be consistent with the overriding purpose of facilitating the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed amendments would prejudice the Respondent by requiring further arboricultural evidence, recall of experts, additional time and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant had been on notice of the Respondent's concerns about earthworks, cut and fill and tree impacts well before the hearing, the proposed amendments would prejudice the Respondent because its arborist had not considered the amended plans and the arboricultural experts had been excused, curing that prejudice would likely require recalling experts, extending the proceedings and increasing costs, and granting leave would be contrary to the just, quick and cheap disposal of the proceedings required by s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the Court's Class 1 practice.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the development application and rely on amended plans was refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused.']